5 ms·

> it has been fascinating to watch how the current style of tech interviews has opened doors for a lot of smart, motivated people And also closed the door for

> it has been fascinating to watch how the current style of tech interviews has opened doors for a lot of smart, motivated people And also closed the door for lots of smart, motivated people who are excellent engineers, but do badly in stressed up situations where they need to do something (coming up with an answer on the spot, usually w.o. being able to do any research) that the job they are being interviewed for rarely if ever actually demands of them. > to move past the situations where people were trying to coast in on the reputation of their university or by getting an “internship” from their dad’s friend’s company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_frying_pan_into_the_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_frying_pan_into_the...

nojito 5y ago
Nothing wrong with having a lower than 100% accuracy rate for hiring. The whole point of tech interviews are to prevent you from making a bad hire who embellishes their skills.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > are to prevent you from making a bad hire who embellishes their skills. Indeed. And exactly how do code puzzle interviews accomplish that? Because here is the gist of what happens, as described in the article: The similarities to the test prep industry are very interesting. Is an algorithm interview reflective of how an engineer works in their day-to-day job? Along those lines, what is the SAT really measuring? Whenever I standardize tests, at some point the parameters of my standards become known. It becomes possible to prep for the test instead of what I want to test for.
  - nojito 5y ago
    Which is a good thing because it ensures you at least don't hire someone who you should not have.
    - usrbinbash 5y ago
      How does it ensure that exactly, when the testing methodology evaluates something different from what I want evaluated?
fenderbluesjr 5y ago
You can practice this stuff to make it less stressful. If you aren't willing to do that, it's not the employers problem
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > If you aren't willing to do that, it's not the employers problem But these sure look like employer problems: a) Risking to miss out on good engineers that happen to be bad at skills that don't have a lot to do with the job. b) Risking to hire people that are really good at prepping for standardized tests, but not at the skills the job actually requires. c) Risking to have qualified people whith a choice simply walking out because they don't like companies using this hiring practice.
  - edanm 4y ago
    For most companies, a bad hire is much worse than missing a good hire. That's why in many ways, companies optimize in that direction.
    - usrbinbash 4y ago
      And, looking at this threads article in the OP, how exactly do puzzle-style-interviews "optimize in that direction"?
      - edanm 4y ago
        As I said in a different comment, I don't think they're necessarily optimal. But a lot of companies do them, which is at least some sign that they have some value. Personally I think slightly different approaches are better, but there are some benefits to a standardized, easy-to-administer test that is better than your random personnel at your company can come up with on their own. (I've seen many far worse ways to value employees than Leetcode-style interviwes). Also, I'm not sure how easy Leetcode is to practically game. I may be way off here (truly), but most people who can get good enough at solving Leetcode-style problems (and are willing to put in that time) are probably better than those who can't. This certainly misses some people, but as I said, finding a filter that only lets through above-average candidates, even if it misses some others, is what a lot of companies are looking for.
SteveDR 5y ago
I think everyone in this discussion knows the weaknesses of leetcode interviews, but the disagreement comes from our priors on how bad the non-leetcode hiring process is. At least leetcode puts the power to look good in the candidate’s hands. Just like the SATs, it’s not exactly fair to the people who can’t afford prep, but it’s more fair than the alternative.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > but it’s more fair than the alternative. What alternative? Talking to people, presenting them with company problems, and listening to their opinion about them, aka. "how would you do X if you had Y?" kinda questions? Getting to know them in the interview process, to see if they are a good fit to the people already in the department? Taking the time and risk involved to hire people if they seems okay and then evaluating them during a probation period? Because, to me that looks a lot fairer than "HERE SOLVE THIS PUZZLE REAL QUICK ON WHITEBOARD NO LOOKUP ANYTHING YOU GOT X MINUTES GOGOGOOGOGOOGOGOOGOOGO!"
  - Clubber 5y ago
    Yes, the current interview process is a complete disaster to anyone who knows different. Unfortunately it's been going on so long, that's all people know. I've mentioned this before but it seems to me like the current cargo-culted interview process was designed to not find applicable candidates in the US to get around the H1B visa requirements.
  - edanm 4y ago
    It's maybe "fairer" (though that is very debatable), but it usually gives worse outcomes. The reason many companies moved closer to Leetcode style problems is that the alternative, which is to not ask people to actually program during interviews, made companies end up hiring people who don't know how to code at all. And just saying "we'll hire for a probationary period and then fire them if they can't code" isn't a very good idea, for anyone involved. Companies are usually reluctant to fire, so they might end up with a bad employee. And even if they don't, most people don't want to make a major change like starting a new job, if there's a significant chance they'll be fired fairly soon.

nojito 5y ago

Nothing wrong with having a lower than 100% accuracy rate for hiring. The whole point of tech interviews are to prevent you from making a bad hire who embellishes their skills.

usrbinbash 5y ago
> are to prevent you from making a bad hire who embellishes their skills. Indeed. And exactly how do code puzzle interviews accomplish that? Because here is the gist of what happens, as described in the article: The similarities to the test prep industry are very interesting. Is an algorithm interview reflective of how an engineer works in their day-to-day job? Along those lines, what is the SAT really measuring? Whenever I standardize tests, at some point the parameters of my standards become known. It becomes possible to prep for the test instead of what I want to test for.
- nojito 5y ago
  Which is a good thing because it ensures you at least don't hire someone who you should not have.
  - usrbinbash 5y ago
    How does it ensure that exactly, when the testing methodology evaluates something different from what I want evaluated?

fenderbluesjr 5y ago

You can practice this stuff to make it less stressful. If you aren't willing to do that, it's not the employers problem

usrbinbash 5y ago
> If you aren't willing to do that, it's not the employers problem But these sure look like employer problems: a) Risking to miss out on good engineers that happen to be bad at skills that don't have a lot to do with the job. b) Risking to hire people that are really good at prepping for standardized tests, but not at the skills the job actually requires. c) Risking to have qualified people whith a choice simply walking out because they don't like companies using this hiring practice.
- edanm 4y ago
  For most companies, a bad hire is much worse than missing a good hire. That's why in many ways, companies optimize in that direction.
  - usrbinbash 4y ago
    And, looking at this threads article in the OP, how exactly do puzzle-style-interviews "optimize in that direction"?
    - edanm 4y ago
      As I said in a different comment, I don't think they're necessarily optimal. But a lot of companies do them, which is at least some sign that they have some value. Personally I think slightly different approaches are better, but there are some benefits to a standardized, easy-to-administer test that is better than your random personnel at your company can come up with on their own. (I've seen many far worse ways to value employees than Leetcode-style interviwes). Also, I'm not sure how easy Leetcode is to practically game. I may be way off here (truly), but most people who can get good enough at solving Leetcode-style problems (and are willing to put in that time) are probably better than those who can't. This certainly misses some people, but as I said, finding a filter that only lets through above-average candidates, even if it misses some others, is what a lot of companies are looking for.

SteveDR 5y ago

I think everyone in this discussion knows the weaknesses of leetcode interviews, but the disagreement comes from our priors on how bad the non-leetcode hiring process is. At least leetcode puts the power to look good in the candidate’s hands. Just like the SATs, it’s not exactly fair to the people who can’t afford prep, but it’s more fair than the alternative.

usrbinbash 5y ago
> but it’s more fair than the alternative. What alternative? Talking to people, presenting them with company problems, and listening to their opinion about them, aka. "how would you do X if you had Y?" kinda questions? Getting to know them in the interview process, to see if they are a good fit to the people already in the department? Taking the time and risk involved to hire people if they seems okay and then evaluating them during a probation period? Because, to me that looks a lot fairer than "HERE SOLVE THIS PUZZLE REAL QUICK ON WHITEBOARD NO LOOKUP ANYTHING YOU GOT X MINUTES GOGOGOOGOGOOGOGOOGOOGO!"
- Clubber 5y ago
  Yes, the current interview process is a complete disaster to anyone who knows different. Unfortunately it's been going on so long, that's all people know. I've mentioned this before but it seems to me like the current cargo-culted interview process was designed to not find applicable candidates in the US to get around the H1B visa requirements.
- edanm 4y ago
  It's maybe "fairer" (though that is very debatable), but it usually gives worse outcomes. The reason many companies moved closer to Leetcode style problems is that the alternative, which is to not ask people to actually program during interviews, made companies end up hiring people who don't know how to code at all. And just saying "we'll hire for a probationary period and then fire them if they can't code" isn't a very good idea, for anyone involved. Companies are usually reluctant to fire, so they might end up with a bad employee. And even if they don't, most people don't want to make a major change like starting a new job, if there's a significant chance they'll be fired fairly soon.